Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

The term "predator mindset" was specifically selected to contraindicate a "prey mindset". I am guessing that the people who are taking a trip down pedantic lane have not actually read Rory Miller's texts.

Yeah, it's a bit pedantic, but this kind of romanticization of animal behavior is just stupid. Like that guy who ran around talking about how gentle bears are until one tore his face off.

And it would be just as wrong to say that bear was vicious as to say it was gentle.

The term "predator mindset" was specifically selected to contraindicate a "prey mindset". I am guessing that the people who are taking a trip down pedantic lane have not actually read Rory Miller's texts.

Yeah, my take on it was that it was about not being reactive but going over to the other end of being proactive and assertive. Kind of like the Jigen Ryu guys training to start screaming at their opponent as they beat them to death with their swords. Train to take the initiative, take over, dominate, then get the hell out... I got what he meant but I do think the word predator carries too much baggage for the casual reader. Shrug. Decent book as I remember it.

100% organic and natural. All perfectly normal and in total alignment with the will of the kami. Fully imbrued with nobility. I see it all around. Different strokes ...

I see...The will of the Kami must then also be aligned with Thugs, Rapists, and Brutal Dictators because you know...They just expressing Nature and the role we play in harmony with it as predators.

William Hazen

Hint: The way O'Sensei and Shoji Nishio expressed their understanding of Kami was to give the world Aikido and I don't remember the "predator/prey" part of that paradigm except...Well you know...the fact we're supposed look at the world of conflict and resolution a bit differently?

Thought I pressed submit last night on this, but here it is now...FWIW...

Quote:

Graham Christian wrote:

The thread started with the question of predator mindset in Aikido.

It also spoke of it in terms of the need for self preservation and of turning the tables on an attacker, which I take to be the essence of irimi in Aikido. Demetrio replaced the term "aggressive" with "proactive," and assuming I understand the implication of this, I like that idea quite a bit as reflecting what I see as being essential to Aikido.
Also included was the idea of wanting to harm your attacker, which I read as having more than one possible meaning. I want never to hurt anyone, however, if I thought I had to break someone's arm in order to protect my kids, I would want to do so. I would also want to not do more than I absolutely had to in order to protect them. Having not read the book, I'm not sure exactly what Predatory Mindset denotes, but I'm hazarding a guess that it refers to the idea that some people will more or less freeze up (or otherwise become passive), while others will become assertive (by either fighting or "flighting").

Quote:

Way back when humans were pretty dumb they were basically hunter gatherers. This predator mindset was the way of survival and as usual used for war too and taking lands etc.

I don't know about dumb. I'm inclined to think they're actually very much like people today, but with a different set of sensibilities. Regardless, just because they used this mindset as a matter of survival more often doesn't mean it's not applicable for the same reason today. Perhaps the lesser degree of exposure to the authentic need suggests greater consideration since "we" (generally speaking) have less opportunities to learn from those few experiences which do crop up from time to time.
The example given of

The term "predator mindset" was specifically selected to contraindicate a "prey mindset". I am guessing that the people who are taking a trip down pedantic lane have not actually read Rory Miller's texts.

Well I have and I've given my opinion of it in my first post of this thread. So to bring it full circle No...This mindset does not belong in Aikido or any Martial Practice except perhaps as a way to understand a few simple concepts. Rory Miller was on the right track since before we are anything else... Western,Eastern, Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise we are biological beings and very much a part of nature.

Remember Predators are basically cowards looking for an opportunity.

When confronted with violence I prefer the "Get between a Mamma Bear and Her Cubs" mindset or the "it ain't nothing but taking care of the guy next to you" mindset too.

You have to aim higher...It's not just about taking life if necessary...It's about protecting life at all costs. Even the life of the person you are in conflict with if possible. And this works on every level. For Example... Next Year will be the 100th Anniversary of the Christmas Truce of 1914.

As Dave Gross wrote in his book "On Combat" Human Beings have a natural aversion towards killing other Human Beings, However, they will fight to the death to protect the lives of others. Thus the revolution in the Military Training "Mindset" during the last century in conjunction with the technological revolution in Combat Arms.

Martial Awareness is a tool to help me express how I may best protect life..not just take it. Like I hinted at in my first post. If it was just about predator/prey Hell I'll just carry a gun and shoot the dudes who attack or threaten me. That some would have you believe is the proper expression of Kami.

Why waste my time with Martial Arts? Because in my heart I know there is something better.

Knowing when you are going to sensen no sen, when you are going to sen no sen, and when you are going to go no sen seems like an important thing to discuss in this context.

Well, I agree and I think that's probably the better discussion than some of the tangents this thread has taken. But on that note I need to go outside and enjoy some time in the sun. And to get some training time by myself.

FWIW- Predators routinely fight and often kill other predators to acquire or defend territory/group or breeding status. In the "wild", humans have long done the same. This is especially true of the top predators (humans being a highly successful top predator). The harm comes when humans turn those instincts and skills to ill-purposes (no matter the underlying reasons - mental illness or just rotten character). In the human world, predatory behavior is not even always "physical" - just ask anyone who works in the corporate or legal world.

For me, being the hunter rather than the hunted means that you have seized the initiative. And often that is enough to literally keep the wolves at bay. Sheepdogs are aggressive towards wolves - not sheep.

Robin

All paths lead to death. I strongly recommend taking one of the scenic routes.
AWA - Shodan - Started Aikido training in 2008

That's too easy. Those who hold the idea of it's all the same and their just interchangeable words and it's yet to be proved etc. don't want to know.

So it's no wonder to me that so many 'think' they can understand Ueshiba for example and yet still say the above.

Not just in Aikido but in life too, it's always a source of amusement to me. You got araes of life which are the domain of spirit or spiritual well being called Religion yet generally full of experts who don't even want to know the difference. You got areas to do with mind yet full of people and experts who can't even define one or have ever seen one. A crazy old world

Peace.G.

I think you are mistaking a metaphor for reality and looking to impose your values, nice as they are, on others.

I actually do want to know what spirit is. That's why I keep asking for concrete, useful, reliable, and dependable definitions of the term, here and elsewhere in my life. I am continually frustrated by the ubiquitous response. "You cant have evidence that it exists until you already believe it exists and act as if it exists, and already know in your heart (never in the actual thinking organ) that it is real and true and the only way, and you'll know all this without any evidence anyway, so just believe what I tell you because I have the answer and I dont need any evidence." I think that is bullshit.

Wanting to know something is the best way to fall into fantasy, self-delusion. At some point, the religious believer will make the claim that they know the mind of their god. At some point, the spiritual aikidoka will claim they know what O-sensei meant. And always in opposition to a reasonable request for useable definitions and evidence. And always with the tone of "I know something you dont know....."

At this point, the best I see is that "spirit" and "mind" are metaphors for emotion, personality, cognitive patterns. Epiphenomena of the body's functioning. Why make more of it than that?

So, let's say I stipulate to the existence of a "human spirit" for this thread. Why not recognize that it is also violent, fear-driven, domineering, awful, murderous, angry, sadistic, and even predatory? If we're discussing our spirit in order to improve or change our spirit, we'd do well to acknowledge the parts of it we think are ugly. So, I think, discussing the predatory spirit is exactly appropriate in the spirituality section.

I know I have all that "badness" in me. I know my "spirit" can be quite evil. I'm not going to get any "better" by not discussing it, or calling it a different name. Best, I think, to pull it out, lay it on the table, and say "Yup, there I am. What of it is good, what is useful, what needs to be changed to get what I want, and what is it that I really want?"

Oops...part got chopped. I was going to add that I liked the example earlier of two guys walking down the street with the "prey" maintaining his own assertive positioning. Again, I have little idea of what exactly the phrase Predator Mindset is supposed to denote, but I'm guessing it's the proactive approach to a situation-based need rather than a passive demeanor.

I think you are mistaking a metaphor for reality and looking to impose your values, nice as they are, on others.

I actually do want to know what spirit is. That's why I keep asking for concrete, useful, reliable, and dependable definitions of the term, here and elsewhere in my life. I am continually frustrated by the ubiquitous response. "You cant have evidence that it exists until you already believe it exists and act as if it exists, and already know in your heart (never in the actual thinking organ) that it is real and true and the only way, and you'll know all this without any evidence anyway, so just believe what I tell you because I have the answer and I dont need any evidence." I think that is bullshit.

Wanting to know something is the best way to fall into fantasy, self-delusion. At some point, the religious believer will make the claim that they know the mind of their god. At some point, the spiritual aikidoka will claim they know what O-sensei meant. And always in opposition to a reasonable request for useable definitions and evidence. And always with the tone of "I know something you dont know....."

At this point, the best I see is that "spirit" and "mind" are metaphors for emotion, personality, cognitive patterns. Epiphenomena of the body's functioning. Why make more of it than that?

So, let's say I stipulate to the existence of a "human spirit" for this thread. Why not recognize that it is also violent, fear-driven, domineering, awful, murderous, angry, sadistic, and even predatory? If we're discussing our spirit in order to improve or change our spirit, we'd do well to acknowledge the parts of it we think are ugly. So, I think, discussing the predatory spirit is exactly appropriate in the spirituality section.

I know I have all that "badness" in me. I know my "spirit" can be quite evil. I'm not going to get any "better" by not discussing it, or calling it a different name. Best, I think, to pull it out, lay it on the table, and say "Yup, there I am. What of it is good, what is useful, what needs to be changed to get what I want, and what is it that I really want?"

Don't know about metaphors but see how you view it by your explanation.

Yep, why not put it out there indeed and then question it as you do? It's all good.

But if people are going to really look at such things then I suggest they really look. So you can take that predatory 'spirit' or mindset that you put out on the table and really look at it and see what it's about.

Then you can ask yourself questions based on it's reality rather than 'reasonable' nonsense.

You would thus have to ask yourself if you like preying on others. If you like finding victims to con, to harm, to trick, to abuse? For only when you realize the insidiousness and stupidity of it would you finally let it go and have nothing to do with it.

So yes questioning such is useful and needed for self improvement. Just finding parts and seeing how I can use them for my advantage is not what I call self improvement and in the case of the predatory mindset would only lead to a more clever, sneaky coward.

I think you are mistaking a metaphor for reality and looking to impose your values, nice as they are, on others.

I actually do want to know what spirit is. That's why I keep asking for concrete, useful, reliable, and dependable definitions of the term, here and elsewhere in my life. I am continually frustrated by the ubiquitous response. "You cant have evidence that it exists until you already believe it exists and act as if it exists, and already know in your heart (never in the actual thinking organ) that it is real and true and the only way, and you'll know all this without any evidence anyway, so just believe what I tell you because I have the answer and I dont need any evidence." I think that is bullshit.

Wanting to know something is the best way to fall into fantasy, self-delusion. At some point, the religious believer will make the claim that they know the mind of their god. At some point, the spiritual aikidoka will claim they know what O-sensei meant. And always in opposition to a reasonable request for useable definitions and evidence. And always with the tone of "I know something you dont know....."

At this point, the best I see is that "spirit" and "mind" are metaphors for emotion, personality, cognitive patterns. Epiphenomena of the body's functioning. Why make more of it than that?

So, let's say I stipulate to the existence of a "human spirit" for this thread. Why not recognize that it is also violent, fear-driven, domineering, awful, murderous, angry, sadistic, and even predatory? If we're discussing our spirit in order to improve or change our spirit, we'd do well to acknowledge the parts of it we think are ugly. So, I think, discussing the predatory spirit is exactly appropriate in the spirituality section.

I know I have all that "badness" in me. I know my "spirit" can be quite evil. I'm not going to get any "better" by not discussing it, or calling it a different name. Best, I think, to pull it out, lay it on the table, and say "Yup, there I am. What of it is good, what is useful, what needs to be changed to get what I want, and what is it that I really want?"

I know this was directed at Graham but as you sound genuinely open to the discussion please permit me to jump in on this. My beliefs are different from those of Graham but I too believe the human spirit to be real and not just a product of epiphenomenon. I believe in a Judeo-Christian worldview. Fascinatingly, Judaism holds to a wholistic view of human nature, rather than the dualistic view of body and soul found in the Hellenistic world. Body, soul, spirit, heart, mind are all a part of human nature. The word for spirit in ancient Hebrew is "ruach" and comes from the root word for "breath". We cannot live without breathing and once we cease breathing we die. Thus spirit is intricately connected with body. Jesus is said in the Gospels to have "breathed" the Holy Spirit onto His disciples after His resurrection.

But while the Hebrew word to express spirit is rooted in a concrete form (breathing) that does not mean it is merely a metaphor. God is said to be Spirit but it does not mean God is breath because that implies the function of breathing using organs and orifices (not to mention that God would be corpereal in that His essence would be made up of atoms, which is self refuting). God is said to have spoken light into the darkness but God does not have a mouth. So as God is Spirit then spirit is a part of God's essence. As God has revealed Himself through the beauty and complexity of His creation, through the Holy Bible (that has been proven to be historically and prophetically reliable) and through the person, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, spirit must also therefore be real. The Holy Spirit is the third member of the trinity and as God is triune (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) He is therefore relational. Our ability to relate to God - the very fact that we are conscious, self aware beings, the reality of objective moral values, religious experience, expressions of worship, prayer etc. - proves that our spirit is that part of human nature that separates us from other sentient life forms such as animals. Interestingly the Hebrew word for soul "nephesh" is used for both animals and humans in the Bible but spirit is used only of humans and God.

Thought I pressed submit last night on this, but here it is now...FWIW...

It also spoke of it in terms of the need for self preservation and of turning the tables on an attacker, which I take to be the essence of irimi in Aikido. Demetrio replaced the term "aggressive" with "proactive," and assuming I understand the implication of this, I like that idea quite a bit as reflecting what I see as being essential to Aikido.
Also included was the idea of wanting to harm your attacker, which I read as having more than one possible meaning. I want never to hurt anyone, however, if I thought I had to break someone's arm in order to protect my kids, I would want to do so. I would also want to not do more than I absolutely had to in order to protect them. Having not read the book, I'm not sure exactly what Predatory Mindset denotes, but I'm hazarding a guess that it refers to the idea that some people will more or less freeze up (or otherwise become passive), while others will become assertive (by either fighting or "flighting").

I don't know about dumb. I'm inclined to think they're actually very much like people today, but with a different set of sensibilities. Regardless, just because they used this mindset as a matter of survival more often doesn't mean it's not applicable for the same reason today. Perhaps the lesser degree of exposure to the authentic need suggests greater consideration since "we" (generally speaking) have less opportunities to learn from those few experiences which do crop up from time to time.
The example given of

I think you're confusing things Matthew. You don't need predator mindset to turn tables on attacker or do tenkan or irimi. All the 'proactive' things you mention are nothing to do with predator mindset. In fact they are how to handle those with one so quite the reverse.

The 'dumb' of the past is about the use of such mindset which was considered normal. atahus cannibals, vikings, coquerers etc. Still today there are modern empire builders who through fear and greed feel they have to conquer other lands. Still in the corporate world it's all set up for aggressive takeovers like big monsters gobbling up victims and becoming conglomerates. Same ol same ol ignorance. I suppose it only becomes real to most when they become the prey, when they get conned or worse. Dumb and dumber I would say for those who justify it scream when they become the prey.

I think you're confusing things Matthew. You don't need predator mindset to turn tables on attacker or do tenkan or irimi. All the 'proactive' things you mention are nothing to do with predator mindset. In fact they are how to handle those with one so quite the reverse.

Certainly wouldn't be the first nor the last time I'll've (yes that's a double contraction ) been confused, but I'm applying a pretty narrow definition to the phrase, "Predator Mindset." I'm not associating it with the mentality that seeks to take away from others, but rather which asserts itself as being a non-target or which otherwise acts assertively to preserve itself. I might as well use "Non-Prey Mindset," like that of, say, a moose (although moose do have their natural enemies) defending itself, either by use of its natural weapons or by running.

Quote:

The 'dumb' of the past is about the use of such mindset which was considered normal. atahus cannibals, vikings, coquerers etc. Still today there are modern empire builders who through fear and greed feel they have to conquer other lands. Still in the corporate world it's all set up for aggressive takeovers like big monsters gobbling up victims and becoming conglomerates. Same ol same ol ignorance. I suppose it only becomes real to most when they become the prey, when they get conned or worse. Dumb and dumber I would say for those who justify it scream when they become the prey.

Exactly my point, the behaviors of then and now are really not that far off from each other...and let's not forget that history is often written by the "winners," leaving those who were prey to their aggression with less of a voice in the history books. My only point here was that people then, as now, were enlightened and petty and everything in between. I'd like to see us as relatively enlightened by comparison, but I'm not convinced. Once again it seems individuals vary and yet very much remain the same...or something like that...
Take care!
Matt

Humans are intelligent. Humans can think. Humans if they take the time can learn to do many great things. We are capable of making choices. Choices based on intelligent and a very deep level if we choose to garner knowledge and wisdom.

If you look at it that way, then it isn't so much about instinct, being a predator, hunter, sheep or lamb etc....those allegories have been transcended by man in many ways. In fact, these days I am beginning to believe that these allegories become excuses to absolve us of appropriate behavior or responses to a given situation.

Sure at a base level, we may be hunters, sheep gatherers. However, I would hope that as budoka that we understand that our practice is geared to understand ourselves at a deeper level and to transcend our base desires and emotions.

I think it is important to know your "redlines". Which ones you are wiling to cross. Know your "triggers" what things/conditions that will cause you to react/proact or whatever to take some sort of action.

as an aiki-jujutsu practitioner I just wanted to add my two pennies worth. Modern Aiki-jujutsu (such as Hakko Ryu & Dentokan) has a humanitarian goal akin to that of Aikido in its philosophy on violence and self-protection. Though atemi is emphasised more, atemi is always employed more as a distraction, such as a mitsubushi rather than as a knock out blow. The Jujutsu technique is paramount, to incapacitate your attacker through immediate pain compliance rather than cause permanent injury. Hakko Ryu's philosophy is no challenge, no resistance, no injury. The art is designed to equip practitioners with the skillset to defend themselves safely and maintain control of their emotions.

Ewen, et al;

Hakkoryu could be considered largely "martial shiatsu", so the atemi is not only always present in each technique, it is a primary component of each technique. For example, there are multiple atemi in Hakko Dori (the first technique in shodan-ge), though they are not strikes in the conventional sense. In fact, the emphasis on atemi, e.g. attacking tsubo, in Hakko Dori -- with Hakko Dori serving as an analogue to Aiki Age (Daito-ryu) and the initiation of Kokyu Dosa (aikido) -- exemplifies what differentiates Hakkoryu from its predecessor and cousin art. Shiatsu can immobilize a person and/or put them to sleep. Knowledge from shiatsu delivered via a strike such as a metsubushi can do the same in jujutsu (i.e. can result in a knock-out).

The founder of Hakkoryu, Ryuho Okuyama, was clear in his writings, e.g.: "[C]almly face imminent peril and move on without hesitation to capture and punish assailants reasonably". "In Hakkoryu, there is indeed no technical skill without a spiritual determination to carry on without hesitation to life or death." So, under certain circumstances, killing could be considered the reasonable response in a given situation of imminent peril. In fact, the shodan-level waza include atemi, that if delivered with full power, would likely cause severe permanent injury or death. However, note how these atemi are presented and continue to evolve as you move up the waza board. Nidan-ge, for example, heavily emphasizes ending threats with the killing blow at the ready but held in reserve.

What Okuyama is saying is to develop self-defense responses to the point they are instinctive -- both in execution and in finding the appropriate level along the use-of-force continuum. Non-human predators kill based on instinct and the need to survive, both to eat and to not have themselves or their offspring be killed by something trying to turn them into a victim/meal. So, malice, the want to hurt or kill when it isn't needed for self-preservation, may not be part of the equation in Hakkoryu, but the need to hurt or kill is reasonable and acceptable -- and so it is in common sense and under the law in most modern jurisdictions. As a government-employed correctional officer, Rory Miller's approach to violent encounters must take these things into consideration: it's not just wanton violence as a response to the same.

Regarding aikido, I can't think of a technique off hand that is designed to kill upon contact (though many of the kansetsu- and nage-waza, for example, can readily break parts of the body). That said, I can see how an adept aikidoka could do significant damage with Irimi Nage, for example, as a technique or as the general framework for some other instinctive response to a dangerous attack. The technique/response itself may not involve a strike or a lock designed to inflict damage or death, but the uke could certainly end up quite damaged or dead upon impact with the ground. If the alternative is the aikidoka's own death or incapacitation, would such a scenario be anathema to what aikido's about?

Thank you for expanding on some of the principles of Hakko Ryu in its relation to shiatsu. I wasn't trying to claim that Hakko Ryu does not or cannot use atemi to deliver lethal force. I was trying to emphasise that Aiki-Jujutsu has a humanitarian framework or philosophical/spiritual structure to its curriculum as does Aikido. Because Aikido is a "do" not a "jutsu" the difference is often exaggerated imo. Here is a quote from the official Hakko Ryu website:

Quote:

Throughout Hakkoryu, the idea of abandoning force is emphasized. In the study of “Inyodo” (the way of yin and yang) one comes to see that an excess of either is detrimental. In Hakkoryu Jujutsu we say, “Sakarawazu” or “no resistance” in order to teach mental and physical relaxation/settling and to not fight against Kake’s force. Avoid where Kake is strong. Focus where Kake is weak.

As described in the History section of this website, Hakkoryu combines traditional medical thinking with arts of self-preservation. This is best exemplified when feeling the Atemi (strikes to the body) and Osae (arresting) techniques of Hakkoryu. Many of these are directed at Tsubo (special points) located along Keiraku (meridians) of the body. They can cause very sharp and distracting pain without necessarily injuring Kake. In Hakkoryu we say, “Kizu Tsukezu” or “no injury” to emphasize our hope that injury to Kake can be avoided. Only when it is unavoidable does Hakkoryu direct its Atemi to Kyusho (vital points).

I don't think we can say that "aiki-jujutsu" as a whole is humanitarian in nature. There does not appear to be an express humanitarian goal in any of the recognized Daito-ryu lineages, for example.

But I agree that Hakkoryu is humanitarian in nature relative to what preceded it. In fact, the system's goal is for practitioners to develop a unified body of understanding and skills that allow them to harm as well as heal people: by learning shiatsu, one learns how to apply atemi in a manner that minimizes the need for unnecessary force and damage when doing jujutsu.

which is why I said "modern" aiki-jujutsu to make that distinction. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough though.

The thing is, based on historical evidence, Daito-ryu, Hakkoryu and aikido are all gendai budo.

OK, back to the topic of the OP.

Miller states in Meditations on Violence that self-defense is the focus of his book -- not self-defense as a secondary or even less significant emphasis in one's martial training. He states about the "predator" mindset: "This mindset, in my experience, horrifies the people seeking spiritual growth."

Miller does not advocate trying to cultivate a predator mindset as the primary approach to martial arts / self-defense training. Rather, he advocates developing the ability to switch on a predator mindset during a violent encounter in progress to survive the encounter. And, in the process of training to do so, change one's natural reaction from freezing in the wake of an overwhelming assault by a predator to being proactive.

Morihei Ueshiba expressly advocated against harming and killing one's opponent/attacker. "To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace. . . . [w]e try to completely avoid killing, even the most evil person." So . . .

Quote:

I guess I'm asking "if I WANT to hurt the attacker and not protect them with a throw" is that considered aikido? I know I have a universal right to protect myself, but should there be a desire to punish someone for attacking me?

. . . is apparently not what aikido is all about.

The predator mindset Miller describes -- which as a tool of criminals, a professional combatant defending his/her homeland, someone exerting self-defense, etc. may be directed toward what society sees as unlawful as well as just purposes depending on the situation and the role of the predator -- for practical purposes often ends in harm to or death of the person(s) on the receiving end. However, I took away from reading the book the notion that cultivating the predator mindset is primarily about preparing one's self to be capable of executing as many options as possible, based on one's training, to address violence when it is upon you. Those options certainly can include the ability to be in enough control of the situation as to not cause harm.

For those who doubt the efficacy of using aggression and violence to in a self defence scenario, take note of Albert DeSalvo, the Boston Strangler.

After he was captured it was revealed that he had attacked many more women than his 13 known victims. Multiple women came forward with similar reports that when they responded loudly and violently to his initial actions, he would immediately flee. It is generally considered that his known victims were those targets who either did not know or were not in a position to make noise and fight back.

This information is used in rape prevention and education courses all over the world.

In the acute moment of being attacked, you may need to damage someone's joints, groin, or face in order to survive. If you wish to avoid the unpleasantness of this extremity, leverage your common sense and Aikido training to avoid being in this situation in the first place. Asking martial arts training to save you from having to harm your partner in this extreme environment is like being angry that your license plates have expired. The time for actions you could have taken to ensure everyone's welfare has passed you by some time ago.